Mary’s
Little Remnant is a sedevacantist organization run by Richard
Ibranyi, also called Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI),
who is a self-professed prophet and Witness of the Apocalypse that
claims to be “filled with the spirit of Elias” (On
RJMI, Current version: 1/2011).

Before
starting his own organization, Ibranyi was a member of the now
notorious sedevacantist “Most
Holy Family Monastery” until he was allegedly kicked out in
1997 for holding the sedevacantist position contrary to the wishes
and current beliefs of his superior, Michael Dimond, who at the time
of the dispute was a Vatican II adherent and defender of the
antipopes (On RJMI,
Current version: 1/2011).

As
of January 23, 2014, Richard Ibranyi and Mary’s Little Remnant
rejects all the Popes and Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic
Church “from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate
antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not
Catholic.” (RJMI’s Position & Authority,
Current version: 1/2014)

Richard
Ibranyi’s Crazy Beliefs and Positions

This
individual Richard Ibranyi rejects canonizations as infallible and
has actually denounced several canonized Catholics saints as
heretics. Specifically, he has denounced St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas
Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer (and who
knows how many else) as heretics. This proves that he is a
non-Catholic heretic who has literally founded his own sect. By
denouncing as heretics canonized saints, Ibranyi actually has put
himself on the level of the Protestant reformers. He is now in the
category of Protestant revolutionaries Martin Luther, John Calvin and
other heretics (such as Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons) who
founded their own “Churches.” He would literally have to
hold that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy for centuries, by
honoring and declaring as saints those he considers non-Catholic
heretics, and that it is he who must come to “restore”
the purity of the Gospel. He even said that, if he could, he
would “bring St. Thomas Aquinas back from Hell, put his skin on
him, rip it off, and then pour vinegar on his wounds!” (RJMI
Audio) Yes, Richard Ibranyi actually said this while claiming to be
Catholic.

On
his website Richard Ibranyi states his official "Position &
Authority" as of January 2014 (he changes his beliefs
frequently).

Even
though Ibranyi claims to be Catholic, it must of course be understood
by the reader that he is not. (All the headers or titles before each
of the sections is that of his own):

RJMI’s
Position

RJMI’s
Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014: “I,
Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), am Catholic and thus a member
of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. I believe in all
the creeds and other dogmas of the Holy Catholic Church, which thus
includes all the deeper dogmas that I am inculpably ignorant of. I
believe in all the ordinary magisterium dogmas taught by the
unanimous consensus of the apostles and other Church Fathers and all
the solemn magisterium dogmas infallibly defined by popes. I believe
in the dogmas of papal primacy, papal supremacy, papal
infallibility, the hierarchic structure of the Catholic Church, and
the Catholic priesthood. I vow submission and obedience to all the
true Roman Pontiffs, to their dogmatic definitions and their just
and valid disciplinary and governmental laws. I accept all the valid
ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. I reject all the
so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate
antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence
not Catholic. I believe in the deeper dogma that non-Catholics
cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church. For an in-depth
profession of the Catholic faith, see The Catholic Church’s
Profession of Faith, compiled by RJMI.”

To
give just a glimpse of how radically his views has changed over the
years, consider how his position on the same topic was just as
recently as June 2012:

“I,
Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi (RJMI), am a Roman Catholic, and thus
a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who has
hence vowed submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff and all
the teachings of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
I accept all the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the
last being the Vatican Council in 1870. [Compare this
with the January 2014 version: “I reject all the
so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as
apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and
hence not Catholic.”] I reject the Second Vatican Council
as an apostate and heretical anti-Catholic council. I also denounce
John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, as
well as all future leaders of the Vatican II Church, as apostate
antipopes. I believe all the creeds and other dogmas of the One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is
absolutely no salvation.”

RJMI’s
Authority

RJMI’s
Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014: “I
publicly teach the Catholic faith in these days of the Great
Apostasy and warn men of the apostate Catholic prelates, priests,
and theologians (wolves in sheep’s clothing) who are sending
the whole world to hell. I am authorized to publicly teach the
Catholic faith by the Catholic dogmatic law of epikeia in these days
of emergency when no access to Catholic Church authorities is
possible. Epikeia exempts me from disciplinary laws that require
authorization from Catholic authorities to publicly teach the
Catholic faith because there are no Catholic authorities to get
permission from. The public teaching of the Catholic faith consists
of preaching, evangelizing, catechizing, apologetics, and written
works or audios or videos that deal with the Catholic faith. Under
normal conditions Catholics must get permission from Catholic
authorities to publicly teach the Catholic faith.”

Why I Left
Most Holy Family Monastery

Many have asked why I left the
Most Holy Family Monastery where “Brother” Michael was
my superior. I had held the sedevacante position a year
before I was released from the monastery and was silenced by Michael
from teaching this truth. He obstinately argued that he could not
make a declaration that John Paul II is an antipope. Consequently, I
persistently condemned him and his belief with the clear words of
the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio which decrees that a
heretic cannot be elected to the papacy even if all of the Cardinals
were to elect him as pope, and with canon law which decrees that a
pope who becomes a notorious heretic automatically loses his papal
office by operation of Church law and thus without the need of a
declaration, as stated in Canon 188.4 on Tacit Resignation of
Office:

1917
Code of Canon Law: “Canon 188. 4. There are certain causes
which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation
is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective
without any declaration. These causes are: ... (4) if he has
publicly defected (fallen away) from the Catholic faith.”

I
vigorously resisted Michael by telling him that I would not consent
to his heresy of denying these infallible teachings. I also
vigorously resisted him when he ordered me not to give these
Catholic teachings to others; and thus I denounced him for impugning
the truth, just as apostate John Paul II impugns the truth.
Consequently, I was eventually released from the monastery because
of this intense dispute; but Michael has never admitted that this is
the reason he let me go from the monastery.

On
August 29, 1997, Michael expelled me from the monastery. He tried to
release me without mentioning the real reason. He told me that he
believed God was calling me to a more public preaching ministry;
whereas, the monastery is more contemplative. I did not tolerate his
excuse. I told him, “That is a lie! For one, we are not a
totally contemplative monastery. We have produced public
controversial information that obliges us to defend our teachings
publicly and to try to convert souls. The real reason you are
expelling me is because I hold the sedevacante position and you do
not.”

Michael
then banged his fist on the table and said, “Yes, that is the
reason! No one can judge the pope. No one can make a declaration
against a pope.”

That
is when I said, “No person needs to judge a pope who becomes a
notorious heretic because the Church Herself, by operation of Her
laws, automatically excommunicates a heretical pope and
automatically deposes him. I will say this a thousand times if I
have to: Canon 188.4 teaches that ‘no declaration is
necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary,’ ‘no
declaration is necessary,’ ‘no declaration is necessary’
for a notorious heretic to fall from the papal office. That is the
truth you are impugning, and I will not obey you in your sinful
commands just as you do not obey John Paul II, a man you believe is
the pope, in his sinful commands.”

Michael’s
blood brother Bob (also known as Peter Dimond) knows the truth of
the matter. He was present during this conflict, when he was not yet
living at the monastery, and also held the sedevacante position in
opposition to his brother. It was I who had originally given Bob the
teachings that a notorious heretic cannot be the pope, in righteous
disobedience to Michael who had kept these teachings from Bob and
had told me not to give them to him. Eventually, when inspired by
God, I had put these teachings in a box and then put the box in the
back of Bob’s car when he was visiting the monastery—while
Michael looked on, helplessly and pathetically. After reading these
teachings, Bob held the sedevacante position in opposition to his
brother. There were many other witnesses to these events.

From
the time I held the sedevacante position until my expulsion from the
monastery, I smuggled the sedevacante teachings out to others by
mail. Michael caught some of these mailings before they went out and
removed the sedevacante teachings from them.

A
year or more after my departure, Michael changed his belief and held
the sedevacante
position; but he never admitted that he had expelled me for the real
reason mentioned in this letter. Simply put, Michael was wrong and I
was right, as even now I am right for denouncing the Dimonds as
apostates and heretics, as is evident for all of good will to see.

Am I the
Witness of the Apocalypse? Does Elias Return in Person?

On
RJMI, Current version: 1/2011: “I will now address the
portion of the… letter that disputed my claim of being one
of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse, Chapter
11. I will start with a question: Would you believe me if I
said, “Yes, God has called me to be one of the two witnesses
mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse?” Does God’s
choice depend upon the approval of [a certain group]… or, for
that matter, of anyone else? Cannot God choose whom He pleases? Or
does God need the recommendation of [a certain group or people]…
to confirm the mission He has called me to fulfill. … God
has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book
of the Apocalypse. Does that mean this is true? Yes, if I
continue to do God’s will; and no, if I do not continue to do
God’s will. If I disobey God and fall away from the faith,
then I will prove to be unworthy and forfeit the mission God has
given me. I am well aware of the fact that if I disobey God, He
would annul the mission He has called me to fulfill. Over the years,
starting in 1986, God has been testing me by fire and bringing me
along this long road to prepare me for the day when this mission
will directly oppose the Antichrist. … Some believe that
Elias must return in person as one of the witnesses mentioned in the
Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. This is not true. John the
Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elias to prepare the
world for the first coming of Jesus Christ. An angel and Jesus
Himself said that John was Elias, meaning John was filled with the
same spirit of Elias… The same applies to the mission God
has given me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the
Apocalypse, Chapter 11. My mission is to expose and attack the
Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom and to convert
good-willed men, many of whom will be Jews, by turning their hearts
to the one and only true God, the Catholic God, and to usher in the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am not Elias but
am filled with the spirit of Elias!”

So
Richard Ibranyi claims to be a prophet and witness of the Apocalypse
filled with the spirit of Elias directly chosen by God to perform a
mission to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his
evil kingdom.

Christ
taught (in His own person and through His apostles):

“And
whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall
humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12)

“If
anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives
himself.” (Galatians 6:3)

“Dearly
beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of
God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
(1 John 4:1)

To
“try the spirits” of a man, his beliefs and actions must
be compared to the full deposit of the Catholic faith (that is,
dogmas of faith and morals) and his obedience to the other laws of
the Catholic Church. All things are judged in the light of the truth:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to
you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
(Galatians 1:8) So what Gospel truth does Richard Ibranyi
preach and reveal about himself? That, while claiming to be a prophet
and Witness of the Apocalypse “filled with the spirit of Elias”,
he has admitted to being a formal heretic that was
thus outside the Church of God and salvation during all this time
that he taught and claimed to be the prophet chosen by God while he
held these various errors and heresies against the faith:

RJMI’s
Abjuration of July 2013: “Introduction. I, Richard
Joseph Michael Ibranyi, held several heresies that denied basic
dogmas and thus was a formal heretic and not Catholic [up until the
day I renounced these heresies]. … RJMI’s
Public Abjuration and Profession of Faith. On this day of
July 26, 2013, I, Richard Joseph Michael
Ibranyi, acknowledge that I was outside the Catholic Church as a
formal heretic for my doubt or denial of the basic
dogmas... and the
deeper dogma...”

Here
Richard Ibranyi admits that he was a formal heretic that held many heresies
until July 7, 2013: “Hence I was not Catholic when I held this
heresy. I abjured from it on July 3, 2013. … I abjured from
this heresy on July 7, 2013.” (RJMI’s
Abjuration of July 2013) Thus, Ibranyi admits,
in his own words, that he was outside –
and not a member of
– the very Church of which he claimed to be the chosen prophet,
teacher, or leader with “special authority” to teach the
truth for all this time in these days of the Great Apostasy!

Is Ibranyi
the Witness?; Does God no Longer Speak to Men?; Prophets are tested.
They are not God

Richard
Ibranyi, An email conversation with Patrick: “Patrick’s
Comment 10: I am not trying to make others think I am teaching with
some kind of special AUTHORITY as if I was a Priest, or one of the
two Witnesses St. John wrote about in the book of the Apocalypse. I
do not think as you do. RJMI’s Response 10.1: Patrick, so
you do admit that the two witnesses would have a special
power and authority from God that would be needed in
these days of the Great Apostasy in order to unite Catholics and
teach the truth authoritatively. Catholic commentary:
“Apocalypse 11:1. Two prophets are promised, to teach
mankind.” Why the need of two prophets to teach mankind if
there is a Catholic hierarchy with Catholic priests? Patrick, I
am one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse,
Chapter 11; and I do invoke that power and authority that
God will confirm. A prophecy from a brother of St. Francis
of Assisi confirms that Catholics will be saved in an unprecedented
way, that is, by teachers who have no spiritual directors or
prelates to authorize them—not because they don’t seek
them, but because there are none to be found. … My public
mission of directly opposing the Antichrist has not yet begun. This
is all a preparation. God will confirm me when my
teachings are pleasing to Him and when I have corrected
my errors and completed my learning. … In God’s
good time, if I stay faithful, He will confirm
me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse.”
(On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011)

Even
though Richard Ibranyi admitted that he was a formal heretic all the
while claiming to be the prophet chosen by God to be “filled
with the spirit of Elias”, yet he claims he’s a
Catholic and that it’s a “mortal sin akin to schism”
and to be on par with “the enemy camp of the Antichrist”
if one do not want to be associated with him because of his claim to
be one of the witnesses:

Richard
Ibranyi speaking about himself: “What truly matters is the
Catholic faith, the truth.If I am teaching the truth as the
Catholic Church teaches it, then not to follow what I teach is not
to follow what the Catholic Church teaches. Those who do not
want to be associated with me because I claim to be one of the
witnesses, in spite of the fact that I am Catholic in word
and deed, are guilty of a mortal sin akin to schism. …
It is not a matter of faith that one must believe that I am one of
the witnesses, nor is it a matter of faith that one must believe
that the Antichrist is the true Antichrist. However, it
would certainly be imprudent and even sinful to disrespect the
mission God has given me by opposing me just because you do not
believe I am one of the witnesses, in spite of the
fact that I am Catholic in word and deed. This
would, no doubt, place you in the enemy camp, the camp of the
Antichrist.” (On RJMI, Current version: 1/2011)

How
can Richard Ibranyi even call himself a Catholic when he is not even
certain of himself that he is one? and when he, not infrequently,
discovers some new “heresy” that he has been guilty of
and that thus, he was not a Catholic? Indeed, it would be more humble
of him not to view himself as something special, or as if not wanting
to be associated with him—the self-professed prophet who is also
a heretic—is “akin to the mortal sin schism.”

So
how to spot a false prophet? Why not hear from Ibranyi’s own
words:

On true and
false prophets (teachers)

On
RJMI, Current version: 1/2011: “There are many laymen
who are putting themselves forward as teachers of the Catholic
faith, and many contradict one another in matters of the faith.
That means they cannot all be Catholic. So the same question
you pose for bishops can be posed for laymen: “What layman
should I follow? Should I follow Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, or
Patrick Henry, or Michael Dimond, or Hutton Gibson, etc.?”
So you see, you missed the point altogether. The answer to the
above question is quite simple: “I WILL
FOLLOW THE ONES WHO ARE CATHOLIC.”…
God shall choose between you and me, between all the false
teachers and me. Why are they false teachers? –Because
they do not have the humility to admit when they are wrong and to
amend their position and eventually to become perfect, as God is
perfect, and to become holy, as God is holy. … For
what does a Catholic have to do with a non-Catholic, or the
righteous with the unrighteous, or the faithful with the unbeliever,
or light with darkness, or a false prophet with a true prophet (Cor.
6:14-17). … The [true] prophets and saints had the
humility to admit when they were wrong; and in so doing, they
progressed in perfection and holiness to the degree that made them
very pleasing to God. Whereas, false Catholics who do not have
the humility to accept a just rebuke and to admit and confess their
sins and errorsare prideful fools who are
under God’s wrath; instead of correcting their sins and errors
and becoming perfect, they go from worse to worse...”

Yes,
Ibranyi is absolutely right when he said that we are to follow the
ones who are Catholic. He is also correct in stating that the people
who are false teachers and prophets are so because “they do not
have the humility to admit when they are wrong and to amend their
position.” As we will see in this article, Richard Ibranyi
sadly doesn’t have the humility to admit that he is wrong on
many positions that he holds.

It
must also be pointed out that while Ibranyi claims to correct himself
of many errors, heresies and false doctrines, this is only to be
understood on those things which he himself believes, and admits, is
wrong. He does not correct anything if he does not himself believe
it’s wrong. For example, if he believes St. Thomas Aquinas is
in Hell because of some “heresy” Ibranyi has made up for
himself, then he will just reject canonizations flat out as not
infallible, and the Pope’s declaration that St. Thomas Aquinas
is in Heaven, just so that he can condemn him without having to worry
about rejecting this infallible proclamation—that St. Thomas
Aquinas is in Heaven.

As
we will see in this article, he has totally made up his own
doctrines, definitions and belief systems and has – by his own
authority – declared teachings, beliefs and practices which are
not heretical, to be heretical (among many other errors);
whereas obvious heresies and errors that he holds, even when they
have been pointed out to him (just because he don’t want to
accept they are errors and that he is wrong) he refuses to correct
and amend. All of this will be shown as we move along in this
article.

Matthew
7:16-20: “By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit, and the bad tree bringeth forth bad fruit.
A good tree cannot yield bad fruit, neither can an bad tree yield
good fruit. Every tree that yieldeth not forth good fruit, shall be
cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits
you shall know them.”

So,
what are the fruits of this self-professed prophet—Richard
Ibranyi? Let’s take a look, in his own words.

Apostate
antipopes and anticardinals and their invalid acts

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “As
of January 2014, I have discovered conclusive evidence that all
the so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II
(1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus
were apostate antipopes and apostate anticardinals. Also all
of the theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward
have been apostates. … Hence all their
teachings, laws, judgments, and other acts are null and void.
Therefore, all of the ecumenical councils, canon laws, and other
acts from Apostate Antipope Innocent II onward are null and void.
In my works before January 2014, I may have referred to these
apostate antipopes as popes and to their councils, canon laws, and
other acts as valid. Until I correct these works, keep in mind
that these so-called popes are actually apostate antipopes and all
their acts are null and void. However, the teachings, laws, and
judgments of the apostate antipopes, invalid ecumenical
councils, and invalid canon laws can nevertheless be
useful to quote if they reflect dogmas, good laws, or good judgments
or show how corrupt some of their teachings, laws, or judgments
were.”

One
could ask the question: How does Richard Ibranyi know that the popes,
councils and canon laws etc. “reflect dogmas” if
he reject as false and invalid their dogmatic decrees and definitions
and teachings? We only know certain doctrines are dogmas because
the Church said so. But Ibranyi rejects the Church, just as the
Eastern “Orthodox” schismatics reject the Church, and so
he can have no way of knowing what is of the Faith unless he makes up
for himself what this is consisting of; by choosing to believe in
some teachings, while rejecting others. And this is exactly what he
has done, as we have seen, and will see.

Scholasticism
and scholastics

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “As of
the year 2012, I have acknowledged and thus held the dogma that
scholasticism, which I call Theophilosophy,
is heresy. It glorifies philosophy in any
one of the three following ways: 1) by using the philosophical
method of questioning and inquiring, as did the notorious
heretic Peter Lombard in his heretical Books of
Sentences, which was published in 1150; 2) by
glorifying pagan philosophers and their pagan philosophies; or 3) by
using philosophical terminology. The notorious heretic Thomas
Aquinas’ Summa uses all three of
these scholastic methods. Scholasticism, which took root in the 11th
century, corrupted not only theology but also canon law. Hence all
the scholastic theologians, such as Abelard, Peter Lombard,
Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and John Pecham, are
formal heretics and thus not Catholic [for simply using the
philosophical method]. While some scholastics did not
always use the scholastic method, they still used it nevertheless.
For example, the notorious heretic Bonaventure
did not always use the scholastic method but many times he did. And
even though he did not glorify philosophers and their philosophies,
he glorified philosophy nevertheless by using its method of
speaking, questioning, and inquiring and its terminology in some of
his works. Hence in my works before 2012 when I condemn
scholasticism as evil but not heretical, know that it is also
heretical. … To be guilty of the mortal sin of the heresy
of scholasticism, one must be well acquainted with it and must like
it. Hence a baptized man who used scholasticism in some of
his own works is a formal heretic
because this is proof that he liked it.”

The
Church has never opposed scholasticism, yet he condemns it as a
heresy and calls people who teach using this method as formal
heretics, by his own authority!

As
we can see, this man is clearly a dangerous heretic who makes up
heresies out of nothing.

The use of
quotes from heretics

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “In
some of my works, I quote from notorious heretics while not
always referring to them as notorious heretics, such as the
notorious heretics Charles Hefele, Louis
Pastor, Ludwig Ott, Heribert Jone, Rev. John Laux, Rev. Philip
Hughes, William Walsh, Alphonsus de Liguori, Thomas Aquinas,
Bellarmine, Bonaventure, authors of Bible commentaries (such as the
notorious heretics George Haydock, Cornelius Lapide, Richard
Challoner, and the commentators of the original Douay-Rheims Bible),
and the authors of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia of
1907, which is full of heresies. For lack of other sources, I
use these sources if they reflect dogmas, good laws, or good
judgments or to show how corrupt their teachings, laws, or judgments
were.”

It
is true that the Catholic Encyclopedia contains heresies; and that
some Catholic Bible commentaries contain baptism of desire, and
possibly some other errors and false doctrines; and that perhaps a
few of those people he mentioned have taught some error or formal
heresy or heresy in ignorance. However, without having direct proof
that a person is obstinate against a doctrine against the Divine Law,
or that a person holds a heresy against the Natural Law, one cannot
actually declare these people as formal heretics on one’s own
authority without definitive proof of that this is true; otherwise it
is to slander them and to be uncharitable towards them, since
everyone on this earth can be mistaken about many things without
being evil or heretics for that matter. (We will look into this in
more detail soon since this is one of the principal errors of Ibranyi
that needs to be directly refuted and that is the reason for that he
is rejecting all popes, cardinals and ecumenical councils from 1130
onwards.) The pervert Heribert Jone that he mentioned, however, we
know was a heretic since he broke the Natural Law by teaching that
one could sodomize one’s wife without committing mortal sin and
that this act would not be sodomy at all provided one did not
consummate the act.

Saints who
are not saints

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “Because
there have been no popes from Innocent II forward, every person
canonized as a saint from Innocent II forward [A.D. 1130–] is
not a canonized saint. That does not mean they cannot be
saints but only that they have not been canonized. If I do not
have evidence that they were formal heretics, idolaters, or immoral,
then I will continue to refer to them as saints. However, if
I do have evidence [that they were formal heretics, idolaters, or
immoral], then they cannot be saints and thus I will not refer to
them as saints since they would be either formal heretics,
idolaters, or immoral. Evidence against them means either
notorious evidence or evidence of grave suspicion (the third and
highest degree of suspicion). Hence in my works before January 2014,
not every person I mention as a saint is a saint if I have since
discovered that he was a formal heretic, idolater, or immoral.”

False
apparitions and messages

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14), Current version: 1/2014: “Any
supposed apparition or message from heaven that refers to an
apostate antipope as a pope [i.e., from A.D. 1130– onwards] is
a false apparition or message, such as the messages and
apparitions of LaSalette in 1846 and Fatima in 1917. Hence in my
works before 2012 when I refer to the apparitions and messages of
LaSalette or Fatima as true, know that they are false and
from the devil.”

So
according to Richard Ibranyi, approved apparitions of Our Lady is
actually the Devil in disguise as Our Lady. Ibranyi, the false
prophet, is thus equating Our Lady with the Devil (what blasphemy!),
teaching that all of these apparitions of Our Lady are False and
originating from Hell. And as if that was not evil enough, any other
of Heaven’s messages
from A.D. 1130– onwards, whether it be from a Saint, an Angel,
Our Lord Jesus Christ, or Our Lady etc., are all False and
from the Devil and Hell if they
referred to a pope as the Pope if he deems them be non-Catholics,
heretics, antipopes, etc...

Introduction
to Richard Ibranyi’s Principal Heresy

This section contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and / or Brother Michael Dimon of Most Holy Family Monastery

For
those of you not familiar with Richard Ibranyi, the following
information may not have tremendous relevance. However, this
information is written specifically for that small number of people
who may have been influenced by Richard Ibranyi’s writings.
This article is not meant to be an in-depth refutation of Richard
Ibranyi’s beliefs, but primarily an expose of his chief heresy,
which is the dynamic at work behind almost all of his heretical and
schismatic conclusions.

Richard
Ibranyi holds that every person above the age of reason who holds to
a specific teaching or doctrine that he deems to be a violation of a
true basic dogma of the Church, or any other dogma that he has simply
made up for himself, is
a heretic.

On
RJMI’s Works (1/14),
Current version: 1/2014: “As of the year 2012, I have
acknowledged and thus held the dogma
that scholasticism,
which I call Theophilosophy,
is heresy.
… To be guilty of
the mortal sin of the heresy of scholasticism, one must be well
acquainted with it and must like it.
Hence a baptized man
who used scholasticism in some of his own works is a formal heretic
because this is proof that he liked it.””

It
must be pointed out that Ibranyi changes his views frequently, and so
he may not hold this view anymore in the future, however, his
principle heresy – if it remains the same – is this: that
he condemns and declares others as heretics or schismatics based on
his own authority, made up dogmas or personal understanding of the
Church’s true dogmas; and that he condemns others as definitive
heretics without giving them the benefit of a doubt if they have made
some erroneous or heretical statement.

I
will start with the first point: “I quote from
notorious heretics while not always referring to
them as notorious heretics, such as the notorious heretics Charles
Hefele, Louis Pastor, Ludwig Ott, Heribert Jone, Rev. John Laux, Rev.
Philip Hughes, William Walsh, Alphonsus de Liguori,
Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine,
Bonaventure, authors of Bible commentaries (such
as the notorious heretics George Haydock, Cornelius Lapide, Richard
Challoner, and the commentators of the original Douay-Rheims Bible),
and the authors of the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907,
which is full of heresies.”
(On RJMI’s Works (1/14),
Current version: 1/2014)

We
Catholics reject this position, as it is untenable from a theological
perspective. We acknowledge, rather,that all
those who obstinately reject
the Catholic teaching on any particular doctrine
– once the evidence has been presented to them and they have
digested it – such as the dogma that heretics are not members
of the Church and hence the Vatican II claimants cannot be popes –
are heretics.

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism,
if anyone, retaining the
name Christian, pertinaciously
denies or doubts
something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith,
[such a one] is a heretic.”

However,
the excuse of ignorance does not apply in the case of the Divine
Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation as well as the
Natural Law. Hence that no one can not be mistaken about these things
since they must be absolutely known about in order to be saved and be
Catholic.

The
natural law is written on the heart of all men, so that all men know
that certain things are against God’s law and that certain
things are in accordance with the natural law of charity, etc.

The
natural law is the law that every person knows by instinct from
birth. It is planted by the Creator in our heart, and everyone –
even pagans who have never heard about God or the true Catholic
religion – receive this gift from God. Examples of sins that
break the natural law and that are easy to recognize are abortion,
murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, homosexuality, slander, and lying.
The conscience always convicts a person who does these things and
thus there can never be an excuse for people who commit such sins.

Romans
2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by
nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law
are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written
in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them,
and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one
another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ, according to my gospel.”

As
the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about
Romans 2:14-16:

“these
men are a law to themselves, and have it written in
their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells
them, that many sins are unlawful...”

Breaking
down R. I.’s Principal Heresy

Pope
Pius IX, QuartusSupra #12, Jan. 6, 1873: “…
every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its
withdrawal from the Church.”

Never
is this statement more true than in the case of Richard Ibranyi and
the schismatic sect which he has created. Please bear with me as I
prove this. Suppose
I were to ask you the question: “how
many wills does Jesus Christ have, one or two?”
I have posed this question to many traditional Catholics, and almost
all of them have responded “one.” This is not correct.
Jesus Christ has two wills, a divine and a human will. Jesus Christ
is one Divine Person with two natures (He has a Divine nature and a
human nature) and therefore He has a Divine will and a human will. If
Our Lord did not have a human will then He would not be truly man as
well as truly God. The idea that Our Lord has only one will was
solemnly anathematized by the Third
Council of Constantinople.

Pope
St. Agatho, Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681: “And
so we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in Him and two
natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no
partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the
holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the
impious heretics said, far from it, but His human will following, and
not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to His divine and
all powerful will.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, p. 128)

To
assert that Our Lord Jesus Christ has only one will is precisely the
monothelite heresy. So, were these Catholics that I questioned on
this issue heretics and outside the Body of Christ for answering that
Christ has “one will”? No, they were not heretics,
because 1) they thought this was the Catholic position and didn’t
understand all the ramifications of the issue; and 2) they weren’t
aware that it has been defined that Christ has two wills: one for
each nature. (Note: If they had comprehended beforehand that to say
that Christ has one will is actually to deny Our Lord’s
humanity then they would be heretics, but this was not the case).
Therefore, to put it simply, these Catholics were not obstinate or
pertinacious in their belief that Christ has one will (i.e., they did
not deliberately or knowingly deny this teaching of the Church) and
therefore they were not heretics.

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism,
if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciouslydenies or doubts something to be believed from the
truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

And
this is a good example of how pertinacity or obstinacy is a
requirement for heresy. Thus, these Catholics who held that Christ
had one will were not heretics unless they demonstrated obstinacy
in this belief; but, being of good will, after
I informed these persons that it is a defined dogma that Christ has
two wills (which is intimately connected to the fact that He has two
natures) they immediately changed their position. If after that point
they had affirmed that Christ had only one will, they would have been
heretics and outside the Church.

Therefore,
this dogma (Christ’s two wills) is an example of a dogma or a
truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn’t have to be known
positively by all in order to be saved.It can never be
rejected, but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or
confused about it until the Church’s teaching is pointed
out to them or explained to them, because a Catholic is not bound to
have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a
Catholic. I hope that the reader is following me so far.

However,
with a mystery of faith that must be positively known by all to be
saved, there can be no confusion or ignorance like that described
on Christ’s two wills. With these mysteries – such as
the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation – you
must positively know them in order to be saved, and you must know
them positively in all ages above the age of reason. This
is why “invincible ignorance” cannot save anyone, and
this idea is a horrible heresy, because no one above reason who
wishes to be saved can be ignorant of the principal mysteries
of Catholicism and be saved.

Pope
Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754: “We
could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us
that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession
and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were
ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters
which must be known by necessity of means;
consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

Pope
Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4): “See to it that every
minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy
Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of
their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know
what he must by necessity of means
know to be saved…”

Here
we see Pope Benedict XIV confirming the Catholic teaching that there
are certain mysteries of faith that no one above the age of reason
can be ignorant of and be saved (such as the mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation). But this does not apply to all the
truths of the Catholic faith, as stated above when discussing the
dogma of Christ’s two wills. A Catholic could be ignorant in
good faith of some of the other truths of the faith; but he
can never be ignorant of the Faith itself (i.e., the principal
mysteries). Pope St. Pius X confirms the exact same teaching.

Pope
St. Pius X, AcerboNimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And
so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We
declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal
punishment suffer that everlasting calamitybecause of
ignorance of those mysteries of faith
which must be known and believed in order to be numbered
among the elect.’”

The
following is a question concerning the above information from a
friend of Richard Ibranyi and that is relevant to the discussion and
in understanding their heresy:

“Can
a self-professed Protestant—assuming he is validly baptized—who
never heard of Catholic dogmas ever be a heretic? If so, then explain
how? If not, then you would have to admit that all self-professed
Protestants who never heard of Catholic dogmas are actually
Catholics, inside the Church, and thus can be saved. Do you agree
with this last statement?”

The
answer: All baptized infants are Catholics, even if they are
baptized in a Methodist church-building, etc. This is de fide.

The
Catholic Church has always taught that anyone (including a layman or
a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to proper matter
and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In
case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a
layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long
as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing
what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The
Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and
schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them
are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the
infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or
schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism
from making him a member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of
Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they
have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be
numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This
means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those
baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers,
are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject
to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does
this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing
his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she
becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the
Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she
obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic
Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and
Incarnation.

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We
ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the
Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is
Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain
obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In
the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to
you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this
Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be
saved.”

So,
one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims,
Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving
Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among
those who are baptized validly as infants, they are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They
only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they
obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary
to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, or
something contrary to the Natural Law. Indeed, teachings against the
Natural Law is very common in the heretical and Protestants sects,
which shows us that these people sadly are damned in their heresies
against the Natural Law, since these heresies can never be excused by
claiming ignorance. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see
this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith
in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if
they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman
Church.”

The
fact is that all Protestants who obstinately reject the Catholic
Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have
separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore
severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true
with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas
on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to
the Catholic Faith for salvation.

Therefore,
all baptized infants (Catholics), when they reach the age of
reason in a Protestant building, if they hold the Trinity and the
Incarnation (which are the two essential mysteries of the Catholic
Faith) hold the absolutely essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to
hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and
inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the
Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and
the Trinity in unity...

“But it is necessary
for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the
incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ... the Son of God is God and
man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes
this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If
they don’t know about any other Catholic
dogmas (other than the Trinity and Incarnation) then they are not
heretics but Catholics (Christians), unless they
hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and
Incarnation or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural
law or deny something that they know to be clearly taught in
Scripture. For instance, if the baptized person described above
claims to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation but holds that all
religions are more or less good, then he is a heretic and does not
have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such a position
is condemned by the Church) because his belief is incompatible
with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which belief
he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest
components.

Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “…that
false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good
and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in
error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true
religion they reject it...”

Another
example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity
and the Incarnation (which are the simplest components of the
Catholic Faith) and has never heard of other Catholic
dogmas holds that man does not have free will (which some Protestants
teach). This person would become a heretic because he is rejecting a
truth which all know to be true from the natural law, namely, that
man has a free will. Thus, he is denying a truth all know about man
from the natural law and he is a heretic.

Another
example would be if the baptized person who believes in the Trinity
and Incarnation (the Catholic Faith in its simplest components) and
has never heard of other Catholic dogmas refuses to believe
that God is a rewarder and a punisher. This person is a heretic
because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law,
that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions (see Heb. 11:6).

A
large majority of Protestants today believe in the doctrines of
“faith alone” and “eternal security.” These
doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that
every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also
contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture,
which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not
saved by faith alone. This person who believes in faith alone or
eternal security is a heretic, even though he has never seen that his
position is condemned by the Church and has never heard of other
Catholic dogmas, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true
from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our
actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our
deeds also.

Other
common heresies against the natural law is, 1) to deny the existence
of God, 2) to hold as opinion that birth control or natural family
planning (also called NFP) is acceptable, 3) to hold that abortion is
acceptable or a so called “human right”, 4) to hold that
the consumption of mind altering drugs to the point where the
conscience is impeded is acceptable, 5) or to hold that masturbation
or any other shameful, perverted sexual act, such as foreplay, is
acceptable. To hold any or all of these positions as “acceptable”
or “right to do” would all fall under the category of the
mortal sin of heresy against the natural law, because he who is
guilty of this sin is rejecting a truth which all know to be true
from the natural law, namely, 1) that God exists, 2) that abortion is
murder (of the most innocent too!), 3) that contraception, NFP or
masturbation (which, in addition to being inherently shameful,
unnatural and perverse) deliberately frustrates the natural power to
generate life, and 4) that the consumption of mind altering drugs and
getting intoxicated by it – such as by smoking marijuana –
is a mortal sin just like getting drunk is, because when “a man
willingly and knowingly deprives himself of the use of reason,
whereby he performs virtuous deeds and avoids sin... he sins mortally
by running the risk of falling into sin. For [Saint] Ambrose says (De
Patriarch. [De Abraham i.]): "We learn that we should shun
drunkenness, which prevents us from avoiding grievous sins. For the
things we avoid when sober, we unknowingly [or knowingly] commit
through drunkenness.” Therefore drunkenness, properly speaking,
is a mortal sin." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Question 150, Article 2. Whether
drunkenness is a mortal sin?)

Pope
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For
not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature
to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or
heresy or apostasy.”

We
can see that it’s the teaching of the Catholic Church that a
man is severed from the Church and Salvation by heresy, schism or
apostasy.

The
baptized children who reach the age of reason in Protestant, Eastern
Schismatic, etc. church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the
Incarnation (the essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who
don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know
of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who
don’t embrace any of the positions like those described above,
which are directly incompatible with Faith in God, Jesus Christ, the
Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know to be clearly taught in
Scripture, would be Catholics in a heretical church building.

Okay,
now that we have established that there are certain mysteries of
Catholicism that everyone above the age of reason must positively
know in order to be saved, and that there are many other deeper
dogmas (such as Christ’s two wills) that Catholics above reason
could be ignorant in good faith about, the next important
point to realize is that the former category (i.e., the mysteries of
faith that all must positively know to be saved) ALWAYS REMAINS
THE SAME! I REPEAT, THESE PRINCIPAL MYSTERIES OF THE CATHOLIC
FAITH THAT ALL ABOVE REASON MUST POSITIVELY KNOW IN ORDER TO BE
CATHOLIC AND BE SAVED ALWAYS REMAIN THE SAME IN EVERY GENERATION.

Pope
St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22:
“Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith,
was not completed with the apostles.” – Condemned
statement by Pope St. Pius X.

It
is a defined dogma that Revelation, constituting the object of
Catholic faith, ended with the apostles. This means, among other
things, that the object of Catholic faith (i.e., what everyone above
reason must positively know in order to be Catholic and be
saved) was the same in the time of the apostles as it is now.

So
the logical question then is: Is the fact that John Paul II is an
Antipope; or that one is invincibly ignorant about deeper
dogmas; or the fact that, according to Ibranyi, “a baptized man
who used scholasticism in some of his own works is a formal heretic
because this is proof that he liked it” (not
that we agree with him that scholasticism is a heresy, but
the point is, if it was, would this be) a truth of faith/ dogmatic
fact that has to be positively known by all in all ages to be saved
(like the Natural Law, the Trinity and Incarnation)? Or is it a
something that must be acknowledged once
all the facts from the Magisterium have been presented to him
(like the dogma on Christ’s two wills, or the fact
that Christ founded one universal or Catholic Church)?
Obviously, it is not a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that had to
be known positively by all in all ages to be saved, because this
dogmatic fact only
became knowable when one has been instructed about it.
Therefore,
the dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope (flowing
from the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church) or
the dogmatic fact that the SSPX is not the Catholic Church (flowing
from the dogma that heretics, even if they call themselves Catholic,
are not members of the Church)
is obviously something that must be acknowledged once
the facts have been presented to him,
like the dogma on Christ’s two wills, and the dogma that
obstinacy is required for a baptized Catholic person to leave the
Catholic Church of which he was always a member through valid
baptism, even if he do not know the Catholic Church by name, provided
he believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential
components of the Catholic Faith) and don’t reject any Catholic
dogma because he don’t know of any other than the Trinity and
Incarnation, and if he don’t embrace any of the positions like
those described above, which are directly incompatible with Faith in
God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what he know to be
clearly taught in Scripture. Thus,
it does not have to be known positively by all Catholics in all ages
in order to be saved.

Therefore,
in light of these facts, what does one conclude about the following
statement in Richard Ibranyi’s books Baptized Non-Catholic
Infants and Children and Heresy and Heretics?

Heresy
and Heretics, Current version: 4/2012: “The opinion
that some baptized men who adhere to non-Catholic sects, such as
Protestants, are not formal heretics if they
do not obstinately deny a dogma is allowed provided
it [the opinion] also holds the dogma that these men are
nevertheless outside the Catholic Church and thus on the road to
hell.”

Baptized
Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “…
It is a solemn magisterium dogma that outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation or remission of sins. This is known as the
Salvation Dogma. … Hence it is a solemn magisterium dogma
that all baptized children with the use of
reason who adhere to non-Catholic sects,
churches… are formal schismatics
because they do not adhere to the true Catholic Church.”

Baptized
Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “For
example, an infant is baptized into a non-Catholic Church, such as
the Anglican Church, and hence is baptized [validly as a Catholic by
his parents] outside the Catholic Church… and therefore when their
infant attains the use of reason
he adheres to the Anglican Church and thus remains outside the
Catholic Church for the mortal sin of schism. … Hence all
baptized children who adhere to a non-Catholic Church…
are outside the Catholic Churchand thus are not
Catholic regardless of whether or not they were Catholic at any time
previous to their adhering to a non-Catholic entity.”

Baptized
Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012: “A
baptized Catholic infant who attains the use of
reason and adheres
to a non-Catholic Church… falls outside the Catholic Church
as a schismatic for the mortal sin of schism
because he is not in communion with the Catholic Church and thus not
in communion with the members of the Catholic Church.
Hence a baptized person [above the age of reason] who believes in
the supremacy of the papacy and professes that he is subject to the
Roman Pontiff but does not adhere to the true Catholic
Church and thus to true Catholics [i.e., his own sect and members
that is the only thing he considers as the “Catholic Church”]
is guilty of the mortal sin of schism and thus is outside
the Catholic Church [and salvation]. All that is required to
be guilty of the mortal sin of schism and thus be a formal
schismatic is that a baptized person does not adhere to
the true Catholic Church or to true Catholics, even
if he does not adhere to any non-Catholic sect…
One way that baptized men manifest
their beliefs is by the local church they adhere to. A local church
is the church that people go to for religious services and to learn
their faith. If that church is a non-Catholic church, even if it
calls itself a Catholic church, then all the people
with the use of reason who adhere to it are guilty of the mortal sin
of schism because they adhere to a non-Catholic church [for example,
SSPX] and thus do not adhere to the true Catholic Church even
if they think they do.”

Baptized
Non-Catholic Infants and Children, Current version: 7/2012:
“Invincible ignorance does not excuse these baptized
children from the mortal sin of schism for not adhering to the
Catholic Church. … Beware, then, of the salvation
heretics... who heretically teach that baptized children who
adhere to non-Catholic entities are inside the Catholic Church as
long as they do not… obstinately deny it [the Catholic
faith]... [this] heresy applies not only to
baptized children who adhere to non-Catholic entities but also to
adults. According to this heresy, all of the Amish
from generation to generation, no matter what their age, young or
old, are inside the Catholic Church and can never be formal heretics
because they have never heard of the Catholic faith from a Catholic
source and hence never had a chance to obstinately deny it.”

The
Catholic position is this: The baptized children who reach the age of
reason (and become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc.
church buildings and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the
essential components of the Catholic Faith) and who don’t
reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t know of any other
than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t
embrace any of the positions like those described above (like sins
against the Natural Law), which are directly incompatible with Faith
in God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law or what they know
to be clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A
HERETICAL CHURCH BUILDING.

Council
of Elvira, Canon 22, 300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the
Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then
returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to
such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do
penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward
to communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led
astray, since they have not sinned of their own fault, they may be
received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This
means that the children above reason who were attending the church
of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics because they
were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by the
Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who
go to a heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any
Church teaching.This is exactly the
Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as we will
see) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately
reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic
Church. So please, dear reader, if you hold Richard Ibranyi’s
heresy: Recant your accusation. Cease condemning Catholics who don’t
hold to heresy; stop leading others into schism.

Pope
Leo XIII, Exima Nos Laetitia, 1903: “The Sacraments,
which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can
preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual
virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can
remain in an amputated part of your body. … They no longer
have the Sacraments, with the exception of Baptism, which they
confer, so it is said, without ceremonies on children; a fruitful
baptism for the children provided that, once the
age of reason is reached, they do not embrace the schism.”

Notice
that Pope Leo XIII taught that baptism is a fruitful Sacrament for
children of non-Catholic sects provided that, “they do not
embrace the schism.” But how do one embrace the schism? By
obstinacy!

And
this truth is exactly what is expressed by Pope Clement VI in the
following statement:

Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We
ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the
Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is
Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, IF THEY REMAIN
OBSTINATELY SEPARATED [i.e., in
schism!] from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second
place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe
that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and
outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
(Denz. 570b)

To
illustrate the difference between our views of what it takes to
become a heretic, let’s look at the case of two members of the
SSPX. First, I should note again that Richard Ibranyi holds that all
people who attend the SSPX are heretics, whereas we correctly say
that only those who obstinately agree with them once they become
familiar with the issue are heretics. Okay, let’s say there are
two members of the Society of St. Pius X who obstinately agree
with the SSPX that souls can be saved in false religions, that John
Paul II is the Pope (after seeing the evidence against him) and who
believe that they are free to reject the “Canonizations”
of the man they deem to be the Pope. Unfortunately, these two SSPX
members are, in fact, heretics for obstinately holding such
positions. But what about their baptized children? All infants who
are baptized are Catholics. So do the baptized children of these SSPX
heretics become heretics when they reach the age of reason? The
answer is no, because in order to be a heretic one must obstinately
reject a Catholic teaching. If one is not aware of the Catholic
teaching or is not familiar with the issue involved, he is not
necessarily a heretic.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now
it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as
to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches;
otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he
chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer
adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but
to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who
obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to
follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he
is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.”

St.
Augustine, Against the Manichees: “In Christ’s Church,
those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions,
and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly,
offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their
pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.”
(quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11. A. 2.)

Canon
1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism,
if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously
denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth
of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

The
children of these SSPX heretics don’t become heretics at the
age of reason; they become heretics at the point when they hear about
and understand the issue at stake and then obstinately reject the
Catholic position. Thus, it would be totally false and schismatical
to assert that all the children above reason at the SSPX chapels are
heretics. But this is exactly what Richard Ibranyi asserts, as we
have seen.

One
rightly concludes that this assertion is completely false, and
heretical and schismatical, as should be obvious to those who have
followed the points made already. Richard Ibranyi has fallen
precisely into the heresy that Revelation, constituting the
object of Catholic Faith (namely, what must be positively
known by all in all ages), was not completed with the apostles! R. I.
says that the object of Catholic Faith (i.e., what everyone above
reason must positively know without excuse for ignorance) is
different today than in the 1st century or even 50 years
ago.

One
should see that Richard Ibranyi has transformed the dogmatic fact
(flowing from the dogma that heretics are not members of the Church)
that the SSPX sect (who claims to be Catholic) is not the Catholic
Church into a truth of faith that must be known positively by all to
be saved (like the Trinity and the Incarnation). And in transforming
the dogmatic fact that the SSPX is not the Catholic Church into
a truth of faith that must be known positively by all to be saved
without excuse for ignorance, Richard Ibranyi clearly teaches that
Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith – and
what we must know positively in all ages to be saved – did not
end with the death of the last apostle, which is heresy!

Pope
St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22:
“Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith,
was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned

Furthermore,
what renders Richard Ibranyi’s (R. I.’s) denial of this
dogma all the more blatant is the fact that R. I. even admits that
certain Catholics could have been ignorant in good faith of the
dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope just a
matter of a few years ago!

R.I.,
The Abjuration and…, p. 9: “... the Conciliar Church
and Antipope John Paul II, whose crimes in these latter
days of the great apostasy are manifest to all with no excuses.”

R.
I. has admitted to me that Catholics living in the 1970’s and
1980’s could have been ignorant in good faith of the fact that
John Paul II is an Antipope, because it “was not
manifest to all then”! But then R. I. proceeds to assert that
in the year 2003 (a period of time which he defines as “the
latter days of the great apostasy”) no one could possibly be
ignorant of the fact that John Paul II is an Antipope; that is, all
above reason must possess a positive knowledge of it or they are
damned. But to admit that the dogmatic fact
that John Paul II is an Antipope was not
a fact that everyone had to
positively know in 1985 (as R. I. did)
and then to say that everyone has to know it positively (like the
Trinity and Incarnation) in 2003 under pain of damnation, even before
the facts are presented to him, is to
say that there has been a public revelation between 1985 and 2003
(“between the early days of the Great Apostasy and “the
latter days of the Great Apostasy”) a revelation which,
according to R. I., has transformed the dogmatic fact that John Paul
II is an Antipope from something that had to be known once the facts
were presented to him into a mystery of faith that must be positively
known by all without excuse for ignorance (like the Trinity and
Incarnation).

Therefore, R. I. clearly rejects
the dogma that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle,
by rejecting that the mysteries of faith that must be positively
known by all to be saved without excuse for ignorance
are the same today as they were at the death of the last apostle.
Since R. I. and his followers are obstinate in this heresy (I have
pointed it out to them repeatedly), they are not Catholics, but
unfortunately, they are obstinate heretics and schismatics.
And this issue alone shows, on dogmatic grounds, that R. I. and his
schismatic sect do not possess the true faith. In fact, this was
proven in striking fashion by an e-mail exchange that I recently had
with R. I.

R.
I. Cracks and Repudiates His Own Abjuration Under My Interrogation

Off
and on for some time, I had been conversing and debating these points
with the followers of R. I. Each time I would present the above
facts, which show that R. I.’s abjuration is heretical and
schismatical, my words would seemingly fall on deaf ears. R. I. and
his followers had no explanation for the heretical portions of R.
I.’s abjuration that I was exposing. So, after I had answered
some of R. I.’s questions, I demanded his followers to answer a
few of mine. R. I. obliged and the debate – for reasons that
will soon be clear – came to an abrupt end.

My
question to R. I. was the following:

Q.
It is a dogma that Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic
faith, ended with the apostles.

Pope
St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists #22:
“Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith,
was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned

How,
then, can you say that Catholics could be innocently ignorant of the
fact that John Paul II is not the Pope in 1985 (and therefore that
this is not part of the object of faith which must be known by all to
be saved), but then say that all Catholics must positively know it
without exception for any ignorance in 2003? This is clearly to say
that Revelation, the object of Catholic faith which we all must know
without excuse for ignorance, changed since 1985, which is heresy.

I
knew that neither he nor any of his followers could answer this
question, but he tried, and in so doing he made a fatal mistake.

R.
I.’s Answer, (9/2/03), 5:07 P.M. Eastern Time:

A.
“This is an illogical question, but I will make an attempt to
untwist your words. I do teach that it is part of the Catholic faith
that a notorious heretic cannot be pope, but I also teach it is
a deeper dogma, which Catholics in good faith could deny if it was
not taught to them. However, Catholics can never deny a basic
dogma for any reason. I have never taught this dogma, or any dogmas,
changed, but Catholics who are ignorant of this teaching are free
from guilt if they deny it because it is a deeper dogma.”

Did
you get that? R. I. is admitting here that the dogmatic fact that a
notorious heretic (such as Antipope John Paul II) cannot be Pope
involves a deeper dogma which Catholics in good faith could deny
(i.e., be ignorant of) if it had not been taught to them! This
means that, according to R.I., Catholics today could be in good faith
and hold that John Paul II is Pope if the facts were not taught to
them! This statement completely rejects the positions set forth in
his own abjuration, an abjuration that he and his followers demanded
others to sign if they would be accepted by them. I quote the
statements from his abjuration again:

R.
I.’s Abjuration, #31: “I acknowledge all those in
these latter days of the Great Apostasy with the use of reason, who
are associated with the Conciliar Church and Antipope John Paul II as
non-Catholics who have been lataesententiae
excommunicated, and are outside the Catholic Church with
no exceptions or excuses for ignorance.”

R.
I.’s Abjuration, #32. “I reject, in these latter days of
the Great Apostasy, all priests who pray in communion (unacum) with Antipope John Paul II in the Te Igitur prayer
of the Canon of the Mass. I reject and condemn all the laymen
who attend these [heretical] churches and chapels, and acknowledge
them as apostates and heretics who are outside the Catholic Church.”

(Note:
these statements are no longer present in his current abjuration.)

As
anyone can see, when pressed by my interrogation, R. I. completely
changed his position from what is written in his abjuration. He
blatantly rejected the position of his heretical abjuration which he
nevertheless (at the time) still demanded
others to sign. Thus, rather than attempting to defend his
indefensible and heretical abjuration form, R. I. cracked like an egg
and proved the very point that I had been attempting to point out to
he and his followers for some time. He proved the point that the
dogmatic fact that Antipope John Paul II is not the Pope is something
which all must acknowledge once the relevant facts are available to
him (like the dogma on Christ’s two wills); it is not a
mystery of faith that must be positively known and believed by all
above reason for salvation without any exceptions or excuses for
ignorance (such as the dogma of the Trinity).

R.
I.’s Cowardly Retreat

After R. I.
sent me the e-mail wherein he completely repudiated the position of
his abjuration under my interrogation, I sent him a final e-mail
pointing out this fact and demanding that, in honesty, he acknowledge
that his abjuration is heretical. So on 9/4/2003 at 3:35:27 PM he
wrote a final e-mail:

“Do
not send me anymore emails, as I will delete them without reading.”

R.
I.’s conscience was obviously convicted by the fact that I had
just pointed out a clear heresy in his abjuration, and that I had
caught him totally changing and repudiating his position. He did not
want to see any more of this. He could not even bear to read
anymore e-mails from us, as he knew that his lying abjuration had
been exposed (by his own responses!) and he had no explanation for it
(as there is none). He also told his few followers to read nothing of
what we would send them, obviously hoping that they would not catch
wind of what had just been exposed. He then simply disregarded the
clear heresy in his abjuration, disregarded the fact that he had
just repudiated his abjuration and completely changed his position
under interrogation, and went on his way.

R.
I.’s own testimony speaks for itself. He witnesses against
himself that he is a false prophet who, if he continues to promote
schism and heresy, will end up being burned. In fact, R. I.’s
rashness leads him to make statements such as the following
diabolical one:

R.
I., On the Crimes of Fr…: “Your children
deserve to be molested by these priests, because the Catholic
faith is not your primary concern, because you have put the Mass
before the Faith, and thus you are not Catholic. God has forgotten
you and your children, because you have forgotten Him.”

While
R. I. makes a valid point here, that most so-called “traditional
Catholics” today despicably deny the Faith and care only about
the Latin Mass (i.e., the “Latin Mass alone” heretical
mentality) and are therefore not Catholic, this does not justify the
egregious claim that because this is so the children of such persons
who have been molested deserve to be molested. This is another
example of R. I.’s invalid reasoning, whereby he states a truth
and then proceeds to conclude something that is not warranted by that
truth and which is even evil. While God certainly punishes people who
reject Him by allowing evil things to happen, we as humans are not
allowed to make such judgments, as God is perfect and morally pure,
while we are not; and since we don’t know why such things
happen unless through supernatural revelation. In truth, there are
many things only God can do, such as killing a person whenever he
wants.

Luke
6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart
bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil
treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance
of the heart the mouth speaketh.”

There
are other problems with R. I.’s positions, but the above should
suffice for the purposes of this article. In the meantime we pray for
the conversion of R. I.

Those
who have signed R. I.’s schismatic abjuration must repudiate it
and confess having signed a heretical and schismatic profession of
faith which unjustifiably condemns as heretics and schismatics
certain people that cannot be proven to be heretics and schismatics.

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42